Risk-reflections design factors: Conflict lines of cleavages
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu17.2022.310Abstract
The article examines the problem of risk reflections design based on the interpretation of risks and threats as a way of social order legitimization. Authors analyze the “cleavage” nature (in the terminology of Lipset — Rokkan approach) of the consequences of these designing. Using Paul Slovic “psychometric paradigm”, theory of “sociocultural viability” by Aaron Wildavsky and Karl Dake, Paul Schoemaker expected utility model, prospect theory by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman, Vincent Covello “mental noise” approach and Mary Douglas works on main risk cultural types, the authors suggest that, despite their heuristic capacity all these approaches, modeling of probable risk reflections is impossible without examination of the current political agenda, formal and informal practices of interpreting dangers and threats in public political discourse, as well as political goal-setting and elites intentions. These elements can weaken/strengthen, shift/replace risk reflections, which is critical for identifying key social polarizations (“cleavages”) between “risk beneficiaries” and “risk outsiders”. In this context, the article focuses to “administrative” failures in political risk management, the victim of which is often the whole society, but not just those who were originally nominated as consumers of risk. On the basis of the identified structural, actor-oriented and institutional factors of risk decision-making and the strategies for programming risk reflections by dominant risk producers, the authors conclude that errors in the design of risk reflections generate risk-anomie in the most vulnerable groups of the population.
Keywords:
risk, risk reflection, risk theories, conflict, cleavage, political risk-management, risk-anomie, risk-solidarity
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
Литература
Бехманн, Г. (2010), Современное общество: общество риска, информационное общество, общество знаний, М.: Логос.
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. and Tversky, A. (eds) (2001), Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and biases, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Новосельцев, В.И. (ред.) (2016), Риск и рефлексия, М.: Горячая линия — Телеком.
Бехманн, Г. (2010), Современное общество: общество риска, информационное общество, общество знаний, М.: Логос.
Грякалов, Н.А. (2007), Фигуры террора, СПб.: Изд-во С.-Петерб. ун-та.
Рягин, Ю.И. (2012), Формула риска, Екатеринбург: Изд-во Урал. ун-та.
Damodaran, A. (2007), Strategic risk taking: A framework for risk management, Philadelphia: Wharton School Publishing.
Дука, А.В. (2015), Вариантность социологии элит, Журнал социологии и социальной антропологии, № 4 (81), с. 5–23.
North, D. C., Wallis, J. J. and Weingast, B. R. (2009), Violence and Social Orders: A Conceptual Framework for Interpreting Recorded Human History, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi. org/10.1017/CBO9780511575839
Фишман, Л.Г., Мартьянов, В.С.и Давыдов, Д.А. (2019), Рентное общество: в тени труда, капитала и демократии, М.: Изд. дом Высш. шк. экономики.
Бурдьё, П. (1993), Социология политики, М.: Socio-Logos.
Мадьяр, Б. (2016), Анатомия посткоммунистического мафиозного государства. На примере Венгрии, М.: Новое литературное обозрение
Васильева, Л.Н. (2014), Элитологическая онтология, М.: Социум.
Damodaran, A. (2007), Strategic risk taking: A framework for risk management, Philadelphia: Wharton School Publishing.
Slovic, P. (2000), The perception of risk, London: Routledge.
Dake, K. (1992), Myths of nature: Culture and the social construction of risk, Journal of Social Issues, vol.48, no. 4, pp. 21–37.
Schoemaker, P. (1982), The expected utility Model: Its variants, purposes, evidence and limitations, Journal of Economic Literature, no. 2, pp. 529–563.
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979), Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk, Econometrica, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 263–291.
Covello, V.T. (2003), Best practices in public health risk and crisis communication, Journal of Health Communication, vol. 8, pp. 5–8.
Morgan, M.G., Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A. and Atman, C.J. (2002), Risk communication: A mental models approach, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Douglas, M. (1992), Risk and blame. Essays in cultural theory, New York: Routledge.
Соловьев, А.И. (2019), Политическая повестка правительства или зачем государству общество, Политические исследования, № 4, c. 8–25.
Алле, М. (1994), Поведение рационального человека в условиях риска: критика постулатов и аксиом американской школы, Thesis, № 5, с. 217–241.
Яницкий, О.Н. (2002), «Критический случай»: социальный порядок в «обществе риска». Социологическое обозрение, т. 2, № 2, с. 86–99.
Aleinikov, A.V., Sunami, A.N. and Shiraev, E. (2021), Risk studies at St Petersburg State University: From tradition to new challenges, Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Philosophy and Conflict Studies, vol. 37, iss. 4, pp. 657–671.
Laclau, E. and Mouffe, C. (1985), Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics, London: Verso.
Carpentier, N. (2017), The discursive-material knot: Cyprus in conflict and community media participation, New York: Peter Lang.
Аксенов, В.Б. (2020), Слухи, образы, эмоции. Массовые настроения россиян в годы войны и революции (1914–1918), М.: Новое литературное обозрение.
Булдаков, В.П. (2012), Утопия, агрессия, власть. Психосоциальная динамика постреволюционного времени. Россия, 1920–1930 гг., М.: РОССПЭН.
Мертон, Р. (2006), Социальная теория и социальная структура. М.: АСТ.
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. and Tversky, A. (eds) (2001), Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and biases, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Штомпка, П. (2008), Социология. Анализ современного общества, М.: Логос.
Рапопорт, А. (2002), Что такое рациональность? Рефлексивные процессы и управление, т. 2, № 2, с. 23–47.
Гидденс, Э. (1994), Судьба, риск и безопасность, Thesis, № 5, с. 107–134.
Adams, J. (1995), Risk, London: UCL Press.
Диев, В.С. (2019), Неопределенность, риск и принятие решений в междисциплинарном контексте, Сибирский философский журнал, т. 17, № 4, с. 41–52.
Латур, Б. (2014), Пересборка социального: введение в акторно-сетевую теорию, М.: Изд. дом Высш. шк. экономики.
Новиков, Д.А. (ред.) (2008), Модели управления конфликтами и рисками, Воронеж: Научная книга.
Штомпка, П. (1996), Социология социальных изменений, М.: Аспект Пресс.
Blascovich, J. and Ginsburg, G. (1978), Conceptual analysis of risk-taking in «Risky-Shift» research, Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, vol. 8 (2), pp. 217–230.
Forsyth, D.R. (2019), Group Dynamic, Belmont: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Kuran, T. (1995), Private truths, public lies: The social consequences of preference falsification, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Бэндлер, Р. и Гриндер, Дж. (2017), Структура магии, М.: ACT
Beck, U. (1992), Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, London: Sage Publ.
Douglas, M. (1990), Risk as a Forensic Resource, Daedalus, vol. 119, no. 4, pp. 1–16.
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. and Tversky, A. (eds) (2001), Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and biases, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Павловский, Г. (2019), Ироническая империя. Риск, шанс и догмы Системы РФ, М.: Европа.
Рубинштейн, А.Я.и Городецкий, А.Е. (2018), Государственный патернализм и патерналистский провал в теории опекаемых благ, Журнал институциональных исследований, № 4, с. 38–57.
Baland, J.-M., Moene, K. and Robinson, J. (2010), Governance and Development, Handbook of Development Economics, vol. 5, pp. 4656–4597.
Радыгин, А.и Энтов, Р. (2012), «Провалы государства»: теория и политика, Вопросы экономики, № 12, c. 4−30.
Рубинштейн, А.Я. (2017), Элементы общей теории изъянов смешанной экономики, Вопросы государственного и муниципального управления, № 1, c. 71–102.
References
Bechmann, G. (2010), Modern society: risk society, information society, knowledge society, Moscow: Logos Publ. (In Russian)
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. and Tversky, A. (eds) (2001), Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and biases, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Novoseltsev, V.I. (ed.) (2016), Risk and reflection, Moscow: Goriachaia liniia — Telekom Publ. (In Russian)
Bechmann, G. (2010), Modern society: risk society, information society, knowledge society, Moscow: Logos Publ. (In Russian)
Gryakalov, N.A. (2007), The figures of terror, St Petersburg: St Petersburg University Publ. (In Russian)
Ryagin, Yu. I. (2012), Risk formula, Ekaterinburg: Ural University Publ. (In Russian)
Damodaran, A. (2007), Strategic risk taking: A framework for risk management, Philadelphia: Wharton School Publishing.
Duka, А. (2015), Varieties in the Sociology of Elites, The Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology, vol. 4 (81), pp. 5–23. (In Russian)
North, D. C., Wallis, J. J. and Weingast, B. R. (2009), Violence and Social Orders: A Conceptual Framework for Interpreting Recorded Human History, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi. org/10.1017/CBO9780511575839
Fishman, L., Martianov, V. and Davydov, D. (2019), Rental Society: In the Shadow of Capital, Labor and Democracy, Moscow: HSE Publishing House. (In Russian)
Bourdieu, P. (1993), The sociology of policy, Moscow: Socio-Logos Publ. (In Russian)
Magyar, B. (2016), The anatomy of post-communist mafia state. On the example of Hungary, Moscow: NLO Publ. (In Russian)
Vailieva, L. (2014), Elitologic ontology, Moscow: Sotsium Publ. (In Russian)
Damodaran, A. (2007), Strategic risk taking: A framework for risk management, Philadelphia: Wharton School Publishing.
Slovic, P. (2000), The perception of risk, London: Routledge.
Dake, K. (1992), Myths of nature: Culture and the social construction of risk, Journal of Social Issues, vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 21–37.
Schoemaker, P. (1982), The expected utility model: Its variants, purposes, evidence and limitations, Journal of Economic Literature, no. 2, pp. 529–563.
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979), Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk, Econometrica, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 263–291.
Covello, V.T. (2003), Best practices in public health risk and crisis communication, Journal of Health Communication, vol. 8, pp. 5–8.
Morgan, M.G., Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A. and Atman, C.J. (2002), Risk communication: A mental models approach, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Douglas, M. (1992), Risk and blame. Essays in cultural theory, New York: Routledge.
Solovyov, A. (2019), Political Agenda of the Government, or Why the State Needs the Society, Polis. Political Studies, no. 4, pp. 8–25. (In Russian)
Allais, М. (1994), Behavior of a rational person under risk: A critique of the postulates and axioms of the American school, Thesis, vol. 5, pp. 217–241. (In Russian)
Yanitskiy, О.N. (2002), The “critical case”: Social order in the “Risk society”, Russian Sociological Review, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 86–99.
Aleinikov, A.V., Sunami, A.N. and Shiraev, E. (2021), Risk studies at St Petersburg State University: From tradition to new challenges, Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Philosophy and Conflict Studies, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 657–671.
Laclau, E. and Mouffe, C. (1985), Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics, London: Verso.
Carpentier, N. (2017), The discursive-material knot: Cyprus in conflict and community media participation, New York: Peter Lang.
Aksenov, V.B. (2020), Rumors, images, emotions. Mass moods of Russians during the war and revolution (1914–1918), Moscow: NLO Publ. (In Russian)
Buldakov, V.P. (2012), Utopia, aggression, power. Psychosocial dynamics of the post-revolutionary time. Russia, 1920–1930, Moscow: ROSSPEN Publ. (In Russian)
Merton, R. (2006), Social Theory and Social Structure, Moscow: AST Publ. (In Russian)
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. and Tversky, A. (eds) (2001), Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and biases, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sztompka, P. (2008), Sociology. Analysis of modern society, Moscow: Logos Publ. (In Russian)
Rapoport, А. (2002), What Is Rationality? Reflexive Processes and Control, vol. 2, pp. 23–47. (In Russian)
Giddens, A. (1994), Fate, Risk and Security, Thesis, vol. 5, pp. 107–134. (In Russian)
Adams, J. (1995), Risk, London: UCL Press.
Diev, V. S. (2019), Uncertainty, risk and decision-making in an interdisciplinary context, Siberian Journal of Philosophy, vol. 17 (4), pp. 41–52. (In Russian)
Latour B. (2014), Reassembling the social. An introduction to Actor-Network-Theory, Moscow: HSE Publishing House. (In Russian)
Novikov, D.А. (ed.) (2008), Models of conflict and risk management, Voronezh: Nauchnaia kniga Publ. (In Russian)
Sztompka, P. (1996), Sociology of social change, Moscow: Aspekt Press Publ. (In Russian)
Blascovich, J. and Ginsburg, G. (1978), Conceptual analysis of risk-taking in “Risky-Shift” research, Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, vol. 8 (2), pp. 217–230.
Forsyth, D.R. (2019), Group Dynamic, Belmont: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Kuran, T. (1995), Private truths, public lies: The social consequences of preference falsification, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Bandler, R. and Grinder, J. (2017), The Structure of Magic, Moscow: AST Publ. (In Russian)
Beck, U. (1992), Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, London: Sage Publ.
Douglas, M. (1990), Risk as a Forensic Resource, Daedalus, vol. 119, no. 4, pp. 1–16.
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. and Tversky, A. (eds) (2001), Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and biases, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pavlovsky, G. (2019), Ironic Empire. The risk, the chance, and the dogmas of the Russian Federation system, Moscow: Evropa Publ. (In Russian)
Rubinshtein, A. and Gorodetsky, A. (2018), State paternalism and paternalist failure in the theory of patronised goods, Journal of Institutional Studies, no. 4, pp. 38–57. (In Russian)
Baland, J.-M., Moene, K. and Robinson, J. (2010), Governance and Development, Handbook of Development Economics, vol. 5, pp. 4656–4597.
Radygin, A. and Entov, R. (2012), Government Failures: Theory and Policy, Voprosy Ekonomiki, vol. 12, pp. 4−30. (In Russian)
Rubinstein, A. (2017), Elements of the General Theory of the Mixed Economy Defects, Public Administration Issues, no. 1, pp. 71–102. (In Russian)
Downloads
Published
2022-10-20
How to Cite
Aleinikov, A. V., & Sunami, A. N. (2022). Risk-reflections design factors: Conflict lines of cleavages. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Philosophy and Conflict Studies, 38(3), 382–396. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu17.2022.310
Issue
Section
Conflict studies
License
Articles of "Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Philosophy and Conflict Studies" are open access distributed under the terms of the License Agreement with Saint Petersburg State University, which permits to the authors unrestricted distribution and self-archiving free of charge.
